HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2022-02-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Newland Electorate Office

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (10:24): I move:

That this council condemns the Premier, Treasurer and member for Newland for their failure to act and protect female staff members in the member for Newland's office from serious and inappropriate behaviour and harassment that included:

1. Grossly inappropriate, offensive and sexually suggestive comments to female staff members;

2. Inappropriate groping and grabbing; and

3. Sending highly offensive Snapchat messages and sexually explicit pictures to female staff members.

It is with deep regret that probably one of my last speeches of this parliamentary session has to be about such an issue, but under the circumstances I think it is important that this information come to light.

Almost a year ago, on 1 March 2021, a confronting report into the behaviour in Parliament House was released by the equal opportunity commissioner. The report contained disturbing details of alleged sexual harassment by MPs and staff, as well as discriminatory behaviour on the basis of gender, race and age. Among the findings, eight people reported sexual harassment by MPs or their staff in parliament over the past five years, with 27 per cent of respondents reporting that they had experienced sexual harassment in the parliamentary workplace. After the report was released, the Premier said, and I quote:

Every single person in South Australia should feel safe and respected in the workplace, but we here in the South Australian Parliament should be modelling the highest of standards.

It is clear that that message did not arrive in the member for Newland's office.

Unlike the Treasurer's speech yesterday, our information is not wild conspiracy theories. We have been provided with specific details. I would like to apologise for the language that I will be using during this speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, please maintain the dignity of the council. I think you can allude to—

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will tell it as it is.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I am not—

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: If you need to—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Turf you, I will.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —interfere in a heartfelt speech on such an important issue, that is your choice. These include some shocking allegations of behaviour in the member for Newland's office that was left to fester for more than six months. For six months, the Premier, Treasurer and member for Newland all failed to act. Even more concerning is that these incidents started occurring only weeks after the equal opportunity commissioner tabled her report in parliament.

It started with a male employee of the member for Newland making rude comments that were possibly intended as a joke, but then escalated into alarming and disturbing behaviour. The male staff member would say things like, 'That perfume smells good, it's given me a perfume stiffy', 'That outfit looks really good, it's given me a stiffy' and, 'That makes me cream.'

Then the inappropriate and unwanted touching started. Whenever the victim would walk past the desk of the male perpetrator, the male perpetrator would smack their bottom. That soon progressed to grabbing their bottom with his hand. We are told this happened quite frequently, despite the male staffer being told to stop. When the victim stood up to the perpetrator, things escalated again, with the male employee calling the victim 'a whore'. After he was asked to stop calling the victim a whore, it only got worse.

I understand the male offender then used Google Translate to write a message on a whiteboard in a foreign language along the lines of '[victim's name] sucks donkey dick'. Once again, he was told it was inappropriate, but his behaviour did not change. We are aware of another incident when the male perpetrator pulled the victim's chair closer to him and ended up groping the victim's chest.

In late July, we were told the victim received a Snapchat image from the male offender. It was of him sitting at his desk and he had taken a photo of his erection and then sent it to the victim, with the parliamentary carpet in view. We are told that two days later, the male perpetrator then sent another image. This time it was another man's clothed groin area with an erection.

What action did the member for Newland take? Did he sack him? Did he launch an investigation? No, he did not. Did the Premier take action? Did the Treasurer take action? Not that we are aware of. We are aware that when the member for Newland would arrive at his Parliament House office, the male perpetrator would jump up from his desk. He would then immediately go into the MP's office and start laughing and joking with him and having a boys' club meeting.

We are also told that the male perpetrator was offered a promotion to work as an office manager in another member's office. We have been told that, after a discussion with the member for Newland, the perpetrator decided not to accept the offer. Why in the world would the member for Newland ask him to stay despite what was happening in his office? How is it possible that a serial perpetrator could be offered a promotion? Worse still, the offensive behaviour and harassment did not stop there.

In September 2021, the member for Newland was in his office. The male employee walked into the office and stood next to his chair, grabbed his groin and shook it around while staring into the face of another staff member. We understand that, despite his behaviour, he was never dismissed or disciplined: his contract simply ended. We also know that this employee worked in multiple Liberal MPs' offices.

Has a welfare check been done on other staff members who worked with this person? Has an investigation been launched into whether other staff members have been harassed or assaulted? We do not know why the Premier, the member for Newland and the Treasurer, who is the minister responsible for Electorate Services, did not take any action. There are some serious questions the Premier, Treasurer and the member for Newland must answer about this inappropriate and possibly illegal behaviour by a Liberal staff member.

These questions include why they allowed this inappropriate behaviour to fester for six months. It is now time for the Premier, the Treasurer and the member for Newland to explain how they allowed this abuse and harassment to continue for more than six months, and they need to explain why they did not take action to protect the victim in this horrific series of events. We need to know what investigation has occurred and if this happened to any other staff member. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, you can continue your remarks, or you can conclude your remarks and then the debate will continue.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I seek to conclude my remarks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, you have sought leave, I have put the question and the answer has been no. You can continue, or you can cease and then I will call the next speaker.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That is the end of my contribution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (10:32): I am not surprised that the Hon. Mr Wortley, after that contribution, would try to stop a response to the claims he has just made. For those observers, the device about seeking leave to conclude is a thinly veiled attempt to try to prevent me being able to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the statements that have been made by the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: No, it's just moving on with the day. We've got more to come on you, mate, much more.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Wortley knows the claims are untrue, and he was trying to prevent me from speaking in this debate by moving to seek leave to conclude. He has been caught out; he does not understand the standing orders as a former President. I will not be silenced—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —in relation to indicating—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! If you want to hear his response, be quiet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer will be heard.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We will put that on the record, that Mr Hunter again accuses me of doing nothing in relation to these allegations; that is clearly recorded in the Hansard, in addition to the statements that have just been made by the Hon. Mr Wortley—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —that I have done nothing in relation to these allegations. The Hon. Mr Hunter's interjections are now on the record in relation to that particular claim.

The first point to make, even though the wording of the resolution has been drafted in a way to not make that explicit, but the contribution from the honourable member at least throws some light in relation to this unfortunate set of circumstances, is that this was a dispute between two staff members of the member for Newland. No accusation was made by either of the staff members against the member for Newland.

The other issues which have been debated in this house are issues in relation to where you have a power imbalance between staff members and members of parliament, Labor members of parliament—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —where they have the authority and control over staff members—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and we have a situation. Let's make that clear, firstly: there is no allegation from any staff member against the member for Newland. That is where you are trying to head, the Hon. Mr Wortley. We know what he is trying to imply, but let's make it quite clear that this was a dispute between two members of staff in an electorate office or electorate offices, because it was shared between an office in the electorate and an office in Parliament House as well, and very serious, very serious allegations.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, again, let's put it on the record. The Hon. Mr Wortley again says, 'You did nothing,' that is I, the Treasurer, did nothing in relation to it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, interjections are out of order and please do not acknowledge them. Now move on.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In September of last year, a staff member lodged a formal complaint about conduct in relation to some of the issues the Hon. Mr Wortley has raised. It is untrue to say that no action was taken by me as the responsible minister. What has occurred in relation to this is as occurred in the example I gave last night of an allegation that had been made, in that case publicly, against the member for Light. An independent investigation had been appointed to look at the complaints made by the trainee in that particular office.

I have been advised that, similarly, in relation to these issues—that is, a serious complaint lodged by a staff member against another staff member—an independent investigator was appointed to establish the facts. That was with the full knowledge and support of me as the Treasurer, as the officers within Electorate Services report to me and, as is the case with a number of these investigations, an independent expert from an independent legal firm was appointed to investigate the claims in relation to the issues.

That was with the full knowledge of the member for Newland, as he was obviously concerned by the issues that had been raised by the female staff member about the behaviour of the male staff member in the office. Those issues were elevated, as they should have been, and they were investigated, as they should have been, in relation to those particular issues. It is not correct by inference to say that this particular male staff member was offered a promotion.

I think the member might have claimed that he was offered a promotion somewhere else. I am not aware of that, but certainly his contract of employment was to conclude soon after this complaint was lodged. For the duration of the last week or two weeks, however long it was, they were separated. Given that there was an office in Parliament House and an office in the electorate, they were separated and his contract was not renewed whilst the investigation ensued. The member for Newland did not renew the contract. The member for Newland did not offer a promotion to the male involved in the circumstances.

I had not realised that this was going to come to a conclusion in terms of contributions as quickly as it has. I may well later in the day, by way of ministerial statement, be able to shed further light on the current status of the investigation. I am advised that at one stage there was not only a claim but counterclaims being made, as is sometimes the case when there is a dispute between two staff members. I will be seeking further advice in relation to the status of not only the claim but the counterclaim.

It is important that I put on the record two things. I repeat again that these allegations are not made against the member for Newland. They are clearly an unfortunate set of circumstances between two staff members, and it is untrue—and the Hon. Mr Wortley knew it to be untrue—that no action was taken by me, and the responsible officers, more importantly, within the Treasury department, to investigate these particular concerns.

It is also untrue to suggest that there has been no support provided to the staff member. All the capacity that the department has to offer by way of providing assistance and guidance to the staff member who had lodged the complaint has been offered. As I said, that is with the full knowledge that on a number of occasions the member for Newland spoke to me about the need (a) for the investigation to be conducted and (b) for appropriate support to be provided to the staff member who had lodged the complaint. That is as it should be.

I have, as Treasurer, approached this in no different a way to the allegations that, for example, I outlined last night in relation to the complaint against the member for Light, the Hon. Mr Piccolo; that is, an independent investigation was conducted, and my understanding is that those who have been asked to be interviewed agreed to be interviewed. The only difference with the member for Light's position is that up until 6 o'clock last evening he had not agreed to be interviewed by the independent investigator.

The only thing I do share with the Hon. Mr Wortley is that any issues of this nature, staff against other staff, are serious, need to be taken seriously and need to be investigated. Contrary to what he said on the public record—and he knew what he was saying was not correct—there has been an independent investigator appointed. There is documentary evidence that an independent investigator has been appointed, contrary to the claims that for however long I ignored it and the member for Newland ignored it. That is untrue. Soon after the complaint was lodged, in September of last year, the independent investigator was appointed to investigate it.

Let me conclude by saying I was not aware this was going to come to a conclusion in terms of this debate this early. If I am in a position by way of ministerial statement later in the day to update the house on not the details of the investigation but the progress of the investigation, I will do so by way of a ministerial statement in the house. I do want to again correct the record and indicate that this was a staff to staff issue and that the member for Newland has behaved impeccably in terms of his concern about the complaint lodged by a female member of his staff.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT